MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7139181973

Pomalidomide Use Outcomes in Patients with Relapse/Refractory Multiple Myeloma and Chronic Kidney Disease: A Real-World, Population-Based Cohort Study

2025· dissertation· W7139181973 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alejandro Yared Meraz Munoz

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2025
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKidney diseaseRenal functionMultiple myelomaAdverse effectPomalidomideCohort studyKidneyCohort
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundPomalidomide-based regimens are standard for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Patients with advanced CKD are often excluded from trials. We conducted a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada, to evaluate outcomes of pomalidomide-based therapy across kidney disease groups. MethodsAdults (≥18 years) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with pomalidomide were included. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were adverse kidney events, time-to-next treatment, kidney function response, and safety. ResultsAmong 748 patients, 440 had preserved kidney function, 210 had moderate CKD, and 98 had advanced CKD. Mean age was 70.2 years; 43.3% were women. Advanced CKD was associated to higher mortality (aHR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06–1.78) and adverse kidney events (aHR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03–2.35). Kidney response and safety were similar across kidney function groups. ConclusionsAdvanced CKD was associated with reduced survival and higher adverse kidney events, but kidney recovery and safety outcomes were similar.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→